MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378471713 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2023.106967

Unintended consequences of curtailment cap policies on power system decarbonization

2023· article· en· W4378471713 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Energy Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRenewable energyHydropowerFossil fuelEnergy storageEnvironmental economicsElectric power systemNatural resource economicsPower (physics)BusinessEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEconomicsWaste managementElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As countries pursue power system decarbonization, a well-intentioned strategy being pursued in jurisdictions like China is the strict integration target, often in the form of a curtailment cap. The effects of these curtailment caps have not been systematically studied. Here, we evaluate the effects of these caps on the decarbonization of one provincial power system using a capacity expansion model. Results reveal that curtailment caps yield deleterious effects that do not align with the stated goals of these policies. Capping curtailment significantly increases storage capacity (+43% with a 5% curtailment cap) and reduces renewable capacity (−17%). Even with the increase in flexible storage capacity, the policy still jeopardizes power system reliability by increasing occurrences of over or under generation. It also suppresses power generation from hydropower and reduces energy storage utilization while increasing fossil fuel utilization. Capping curtailment increases economic costs (+6% with a 5% curtailment cap) and CO 2 emissions (+7%).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it